Senecio violifolius Cabrera

Calvo, Joel, Benítez, Guillermo, Granda, Arturo & Beltrán, Hamilton, 2022, On the identity and typification of Raimondi’s names Culcitium discolor and Cryptochaete andicola (Compositae), Candollea 77 (1), pp. 1-8 : 3

Senecio violifolius Cabrera in Darwiniana 10: 577. 1954.

Holotypus: PERU. Dept . Lima: Yauyos, Huacracocha a 17 km de Tupe, 4400 m, 22. I .1952, Cerrate & Tovar 1222 ( LP [ LP 000707 ] image!; iso-: USM [ USM000198 ]!) .

= Cryptochaete andicola Raimondi, Elem. Bot. 2: 187. 1857 [non Senecio andicola Turcz., 1851 ]. Neotypus (designated here): PERU: Dept. Lima: Yauyos, Laraos, Carhuanisho , [12º22'52"S 75º38'22"W], 4957 m, 4.VI.2017, Beltrán 8085 (USM-302354!). Fig. 1.

Vernacular names. – In Peru, this species is known under the name “Huamanripa” or “Huamanlipa” ( HERRERA, 1919; SOUKUP, 1987).

Distribution and ecology. – This species is known from central Peru to northern Bolivia ( CABRERA, 1985).

Senecio violifolius is a floristic element of the puna vegetation that grows in rocky places at elevations of 4000–5100 m ( CABRERA, 1985; BELTRÁN & ROQUE, 2015).

Notes. – The neotype designated here for Cryptochaete andicola was collected nearby Laraos (Yauyos Province), not far from the type locality in the southeastern Lima Department .

HERRERA (1921) oddly synonymized Cryptochaete andicola with Laccopetalum giganteum (Raimondi ex Wedd.) Ulbr. , a very distinct plant belonging to the family Ranunculaceae (in the original description Raimondi explicitly indicated that the new species corresponds to the Compositae). The explanation of such confusion can be found in ULBRICH (1906). According to a Weberbauer personal communication, Ulbrich explained that L. giganteum is also called “Huamanripa” in some parts of Peru, owing its popular name to a Compositae also known as “Huamanripa” that is used medicinally for the same diseases. It is also striking that, a few years later, the same author stated that Cryptochaete andicola was the same species than Saxifraga magellanica var. peruviana (Sternb.) J.F. Macbr. ( HERRERA, 1935) . Once again, the confusion likely responds to the coincidence in the vernacular names (see MACBRIDE, 1938).

On a nomenclatural note, it is also worth mentioning that the name Cryptochaete had previously been described as Microchaete sect. Cryptochaete Benth. [1845] . Although no reference to a basionym was given by Raimondi, the description of C. andicola is acceptable as a descriptio generico-specifica according to Art. 38.5 (TURLAND et al., 2018), and thereby, he fulfilled the requirements for valid publication of Cryptochaete as the name of a new monotypic genus. Under Art. 41.4, Cryptochaete is therefore to be treated as a name at new rank, i.e. Cryptochaete (Benth.) Raimondi , which corresponds to a synonym of Senecio . The reason that motivated Raimondi to propose a new genus to describe a plant so similar to Senecio is a matter that remains unresolved.

Senecio violifolius can be confused with S. calvus . They mainly differ in leaf lamina shape (elliptic to suborbicular in S. violifolius vs. narrowly lanceolate to narrowly oblanceolate in S. calvus ), leaf margin (dentate, plane in S. violifolius vs. denticulate, revolute [at least in dried specimens]), and petiole (clearly differentiated from the leaf lamina in S. violifolius vs. lamina attenuate into a pseudopetiole). Moreover, S. calvus is a species remarkably more robust. Some authors also misidentified S. violifolius with S. rhizomatus , a species well differentiated by the glandular-pubescent indumentum covering most parts of the plant.